Ever wondered what it would be like to work without bosses or chains of command? How about a company that pays staff according to what they are worth, or without hierarchy within the workplace?

Enter WL Gore & Associates which has topped a nationwide "Best Companies to Work For" survey for the second year running.

At first glance, it works like any other manufacturing business: it produces fabrics and polymer products such as Gore-Tex. Take a closer look, however, and you'll discover it has an almost socialist work culture.

Staff are "associates" and bosses "sponsors" who guide them through a "general work area".

It is a work culture embraced throughout the firm's three Scottish factories (two in Livingston, the other in Dundee). With 45 plants across the globe, it employs 6,000 people. The Sunday Times, which conducted the Best Companies to Work For survey, found that 92% of employees believe they make a valuable contribution to the firm's success, while 93% would miss Gore if they left.

Furthermore, nine in every 10 employees believe their manager trusts their judgement; a fraction fewer feel he or she talks openly with them; and 84% say the principles of the firm would not alter if the leader changed.

But with such freedom, are these principles too finely balanced?

Chris Moore, a senior lecturer on academic staff and human resource management at Strathclyde University, says: "It is certainly not a typical business structure.

"It's all very well fostering a unique work culture - but the question is: does the system actually improve the company's performance?"

He argues it is difficult for a company to avoid a conventional pecking order - one which has become an established business practice for centuries. While Gore claims to have achieved a healthier bottom line, it may not suit some managers' way of working. Moore says it might be a challenge for employees who are new to the regime to work in a level playing field environment.

Employed in "work areas" rather than defined roles, Gore encourages "self-motivation" in which individuals are required to take an interest in a variety of job functions or projects.

In this way, it advocates a surreptitious approach for associates to overlap in different work areas. Decisions are made by teams that can range in size - even down to an individual - based on what has to be done.

One knock-on effect is in its dealings with the media. Setting up interviews and arranging photographs of Gore employees proved tricky.

Our case study, John Kennedy, initially said he was far too busy to stand still for our photographer and it took a flurry of phone calls with staff whose seniority was difficult to ascertain, before the situation was resolved.

Nobody is charged with promoting the firm and its culture, which could explain why it has received so little attention in the press.

Mr Moore says that from a health and safety point of view, it could be dangerous for people to carry out tasks they are not actually trained to do. But in this situation, it is the role of the so-called leaders to help individuals make decisions and gauge if they have sufficient knowledge to tackle a different work area. Leaders may be appointed, but Gore claims they naturally evolve by demonstrating special knowledge and experience.

While the company may strive to have an "ideal democracy", Moore questions people's motives for working there. Although there are some highly-skilled employees at Gore, new recruits have to prove themselves.

"It's interesting why people would be attracted to work there if they felt their experience or qualifications counted for nothing," he reasons. "Many people might be put off working for a company which has too much equality. Nevertheless, those who like working at Gore appear to earn credibility, and their qualifications must shine through."

Despite the company employing skilled personnel, all new recruits are taken on as equals. It is up to individuals to take charge of their own work area and earn trust from their fellow associates.

Such an explanation might seem like HR spiel, but Gore is adamant that equality and freedom have contributed to job satisfaction, reducing staff turnover. But with no hierarchy, there is no opportunity for promotion.

Instead, there is a financial incentive for associates to excel. People are paid according to the contribution they make to performance; the policy is to calculate salaries that are "internally fair" and "externally competitive".

Gore draws a line between the two, allowing associates to decide democratically how much each other should be paid. Because there is no pay-grading structure, salary rises are made according to a person's effort towards the turnover. Staff contribution is measured by a poll conducted amongst fellow associates who rank each other in terms of overall team effort. Team leaders, sponsors and HR are included on a ballot sheet and the ratings are averaged out to calculate a pay rise or, some cases, a cut.

But is this enough to motivate and drive staff?

"Not having a salary structure or promotion to work to could be a negative thing for some," argues Moore. "The incentive for many people is the opportunity to progress. Promotion attracts employees with career prospects and a ladder to climb."

Terms and conditions

Annual sales: £103m

Staff numbers: 429

Male:female ratio: 63:37

Staff turnover: 5%

Typical job: Engineer/ scientist

Holidays: 25-plus days for all staff

Maternity: At least 10 weeks on full pay

Long service: 40% of employees have more than five years' service

Pensions: Non-contributory or firms pay double staff contribution

Shares: Share option scheme open to employees

Case study: Working flat out for equality

As a business leader who joined Gore 18 years ago, John Kennedy is a confirmed advocate of the company's work culture.

Despite his enthusiasm, he believes the flat structure may not suit every employer and their employees. "Companies have asked us if they could adopt a similar culture in their organisation. Some have tried and failed," says Mr Kennedy. "Having no job title, hierarchy or clear career progression does not appeal to some people who work in organisations such as the civil service. Some employees like having the next years of their career mapped out so they have security and defined prospects."

With associates having no job descriptions, Gore advertises the new posts within the company as "general" work areas.

People who apply for a job are given a thorough description of how the ompany operates and how they can contribute to Gore's business need.

Job criteria within adverts are aimed at "qualified individuals" with skills in a certain vocation, which fit the culture.

But "work areas" are not arbitrary, insists Mr Kennedy: "We wouldn't let people expose themselves to risks or injury through not having adequate training or experience in their work area.

"Those who want to work with a particular piece of equipment or develop a skill are trained assuming the company has a business need." Associates work to a standard employment contract and are governed by regular disciplinary procedures; the company uses both verbal and written warnings to discipline staff. "We don't work in a Utopian environment. Occasionally we have to exercise these procedures to someone who has not played by the rules. Gore also has summary dismissal procedures in place which are very similar to those in force with other organisations."